• 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.

WTC vs. other skyscrapers

JimBenArm

Based on a true story!
JimBenArm
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
13,092
I've had a question bouncing around in my head for some time now. I know, a bit like a BB in a five-gallon bucket!

One of the things the loons toss out is that the WTC's were not up to code, contained asbestos that had to be removed, and that there was going to be huge expenses in bringing them up to snuff, hence they needed to be demolished.

So, I was wondering, what about some of the other skyscrapers in NYC, like the Empire State Building, or the Chrysler Building? They surely contain much more asbestos, and would require much more extensive renovation and asbestos removal than both of the WTC towers.

Has there ever been any kind of comparison that anyone knows of, or would it not be a valid point?

Thanks!
 
I don't know of any such comparison. It might be interesting to see if any such removal has been done. It would be a VERY extensive project, if it's been undertaken.

I think it would be a valid point, especially for the ESB. The size of it would be comparable to one WTC tower. The Chrysler building isn't as big, but it'd still be a massive job.
 
At the begining of the 1993 school year all NYC public schools were closed for several weeks in order to inspect for and abate asbestos.

About 1000 buildings were inspected and asbestos, were it was found, was abated. The cost was (I think) around $100 million.

When the final report was completed it was determined that leaving the asbestos in place would have been the better option. It wasn't exposed in any way to harm people, thus the cost of removing it outweighted both the expense and the potential of exposure.

I've heard CTers say that it would costs billions to abate asbestos in both towers. Ridiculous. I think most experts would have said leave what asbestos remained in the towers, just don't disturb it and have experts keep a watch on it.
 
Last edited:
One important thing to remember about asbestos is that it's most dangerous to the people installing it, and to people who have to work in it constantly (like plumbers and electricans). Workers, tennants and the like are at very little risk for developing mesothelioma or other lung problems.
 
Ah, I made the same mistake CT's make. I just assumed there would be asbestos in them, since they were so much older, so didn't research it.

Well, I knew somebody here would know, so thanks for the info. At least I have some ammo to use on this issue, now.
 
on a related note, how common is the tube-in-tube design these days? are many other buildings using the design or was the WTC unique?
 
The Almond said:
One important thing to remember about asbestos is that it's most dangerous to the people installing it, and to people who have to work in it constantly (like plumbers and electricans). Workers, tennants and the like are at very little risk for developing mesothelioma or other lung problems.
Click to expand...
It is most dangerous to the people removing it. Asbestos is very safe, as long as it remains intact. Sometimes disturbing it is far more dangerous than just leaving it be.

In fact, there was a bit of an asbestos scare in a local high school, and the decision was to leave it, as removing it would actually increase the danger to students and teachers.

I once spent a summer working as an asbestos remover. Now that is a job that sucks.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
on a related note, how common is the tube-in-tube design these days? are many other buildings using the design or was the WTC unique?
Click to expand...
There are many such buildings these days. The Twin Towers weren't the first of this type, but they were among the first wave, which came in the mid-60's. Several much smaller buildings of this design opened then. Other giants were being designed at the same time as the Twin Towers. Chicago has the Hancock and Aon Centers, both over 1,100 feet, which opened at around the same time as the WTC. The Sears Tower, which opened in 1974, is a bundle of such tube-within-a-tube buildings.
 
By the way, my thing isn't actually about asbestos at all and is probably irrelevant in that sense. But it's still useful.
 
chippy said:
By the way, my thing isn't actually about asbestos at all and is probably irrelevant in that sense. But it's still useful.
Click to expand...
Yes, quite. The amount of explosives, det cord, number of columns, all required to fell a building less than half the height of the WTC towers was staggering. But somehow the WTC's were brought down this way, and no one noticed anything beforehand.

Yeah, right!
 
JimBenArm said:
Ah, I made the same mistake CT's make. I just assumed there would be asbestos in them, since they were so much older, so didn't research it.

Well, I knew somebody here would know, so thanks for the info. At least I have some ammo to use on this issue, now.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is asbestos in the Empire State Building. That can be seen from a plague listing recipents of The Empire State Craftmanship Awards. The plague is located in the main lobby of the building honoring an outstanding worker in each trade involved in the construction of the Empire State Building, 3/17/30-5/1/31.

http://www.esbnyc.com/tourism/tourism_facts_awards.cfm?CFID=14220&CFTOKEN=1408

One listed person is:
Peter Madden - Asbestos Worker

There may have not been asbestos in the fireproofing, but asbestos had many other functions as well.

"The industry that boasted the most widespread use of asbestos was, by far, the building and construction industry. Its insulating and flame-retardant properties made asbestos the perfect material for keeping buildings warm and safe. Not only was asbestos used for insulation in walls but also in such materials as siding, floor and ceiling tiles, roofing tars and shingles, cement pipes, gutters and rainwater pipes, mud and texture coats like stucco, plaster, putty, caulk, and even stage curtains in theaters and schools."

http://www.mesotheliomasos.com/asbestosHistory.php
 
Last edited:
Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were common in buildings up until 1980 or so when it began to be phased out. Vinyl-asbestos tile was used in both commercial and residential buildings for many years. When a commercial property changes hands or is refinanced, it is common for a Phase I environmental study to be performed, and it is not unusual for these studies to conclude that ACMs or Presumed ACMs are contained on the property. Unless the asbestos is "friable" (crumbling), it is common for the lender on the transaction to require that the borrower agree to an operations and maintenance program (PDF file) which specifies what can be done with the ACMs and PACMs. This is absolutely routine, and the O&M program is a relatively trivial expense; for example, on a roughly $15 million shopping center that I analyzed lately which had ACMs and PACMs, the O&M cost was $4,000. The notion that the asbestos had to be removed from the WTC is nutty.
 
Last edited:
ref said:
Actually, there is asbestos in the Empire State Building. That can be seen from a plague listing recipents of The Empire State Craftmanship Awards. The plague is located in the main lobby of the building honoring an outstanding worker in each trade involved in the construction of the Empire State Building, 3/17/30-5/1/31.
Click to expand...
I think the word you want is plaque. ;)
 
jhunter1163 said:
I don't know of any such comparison. It might be interesting to see if any such removal has been done. It would be a VERY extensive project, if it's been undertaken.
Click to expand...
Actually, I believe that refitting the WTC towers would have been cheaper than most other buildingds because of their very simple design: completely open floors with no walls (excpect removable ones). The floor trusses seem to have a very simple fire protection, so the only places with asbestos would propably have been the core and the outer walls.


fireproofing.jpg
 
Andúril said:
Actually, I believe that refitting the WTC towers would have been cheaper than most other buildingds because of their very simple design: completely open floors with no walls (excpect removable ones). The floor trusses seem to have a very simple fire protection, so the only places with asbestos would propably have been the core and the outer walls.


http://www.debunking911.com/fireproofing.jpg
Click to expand...
The floor trusses did have a spray-on asbestos-based coating, similar to the photo. But as I noted in my post linked above, it was only up to the 38th floor of the north tower, and much of that had been replaced by Sept. 11, 2001.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I think the word you want is plaque. ;)
Click to expand...

Oops :D yes, I really meant plaque. Sometimes you get funny sentences with bad english.

I tried to edit that, but I couldn't. Can you only edit messages from the same computer they were written? Because I'm on a different computer now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom