That's not the same as being "built on the cheap", which was what you claimed. The builders had fully intended to use asbestos all the way up, and were prevented.
What proof do you have that the alternative fireproofing was "cheaper" than the asbestos they had planned to use in the first place? If it was a "new" process it could very well have been more expensive. Where's your comparative cost analysis for both materials in 1970? Let's see it.
In any case, the fireproofing would have been perfectably adequate for a FIRE. The problem, if you saw the show last night, was that the impact and subsequent explosion blasted the fireproofing right off the steel in the impact zone, so its effectiveness was a moot point. And the other fire-suppression methods failed as well. Everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong. It wasn't just the coating on the steel.
When the builders were prevented from using asbestos, they had three choices:
1. Encase the steel beams in concrete (much too expensive as the buildings were now at the 67th floor level).
2. Stop building above the 67th floor.
3. "Invent" a new method of fireproofing the steel beams.
Choice 3 was made.
What proof do you have that the alternative fireproofing was "cheaper" than the asbestos they had planned to use in the first place? If it was a "new" process it could very well have been more expensive. Where's your comparative cost analysis for both materials in 1970? Let's see it.
The question was not the cost of the alternative fireproofing method, but rather the cost of the above choices 1 or 2.
In any case, the fireproofing would have been perfectably adequate for a FIRE. The problem, if you saw the show last night, was that the impact and subsequent explosion blasted the fireproofing right off the steel in the impact zone, so its effectiveness was a moot point. And the other fire-suppression methods failed as well. Everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong. It wasn't just the coating on the steel.
Fireproofing is expected to protect the steel beams for up to 4 hours, though in the WTC attack the fireproofing might not have performed as well.
However, there are people who believe had asbestos been used for all the floors, that the towers would have stayed up longer, and perhaps have survived.
Suggest you read today's article in Newsday (www.newsday.com) about the collapse of the WTC, as they discuss fireproofing.