Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FreedomCalls
Well, duh! Of course there was higher levels of asbestos in the air -- two huge 110-story buildings built with asbestos insulation just crashed to the ground.

If so, it had to be from smaller nearby buildings.
The original plans for both towers had asbestos in the building plans. The environmentalists had a fit, and the building engineeers had to remove it and replace it with something "safer." That's why the towers burned the way they did. The original plans had them being 2 of the safest buildings ever built.

33 posted on 09/03/2003 10:01:06 PM PDT by concerned about politics (Lucifers lefties are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: concerned about politics
This was discussed here two years ago. On one of the towers the asbestos was already in place about 1/2 way up and the other about 1/3 of the way up when the change was made and they ceased to use asbestos. In both cases, the asbestos was well below the point of impact of the aircraft. Both towers did have some asbestos.
34 posted on 09/03/2003 10:15:31 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: concerned about politics; FreedomCalls
If I remember correctly, the asbestos used in the construction was different than the stuff that is used for insulation and not the same health risk. Although it appears to be a problem when the building comes down.
38 posted on 09/03/2003 10:32:36 PM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson