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

Skip to comments.

Above the Impact: A WTC Survivor s Story
Nova ^ | 5/29/02

Posted on 04/29/2002 12:32:14 PM PDT by dead

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 last
To: Tuco-bad
So the choices were stop building at the 67th floor level or "invent" a new fireproofing technique.
Is innovation a bad thing? When you run into difficulty, should you just throw your hands up and say never mind?
The fireproofing they "invented" would have worked fine under any normal circumstances, but guess what, fully fueled jumbo jets intentionally plowing into the buildings at full speed was anything but normal. The buildings were fine, the blame rests with the terrorists.
81 posted on 05/01/2002 2:50:44 PM PDT by Fry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: dead
Thank you for the post - what a touching story.
82 posted on 05/01/2002 2:52:25 PM PDT by Chili Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
Then you agree, there was no "choice 1" and you were wrong to say it was ever an option.

Yes - it was not a viable option.

I just listed it a choice, just to list all options, even non-viable options.

83 posted on 05/01/2002 2:55:06 PM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
The bottom-line is that once the builders were prevented from fireproofing with asbestos, and since concrete fireproofing was no longer feasible (building was now at 67th floor level), the WTC should have been topped out at the 67th floor level, as there was not another vialble fireproofing technique that could perform to standards.

The bottom line is that you still haven't explained how the builders took the cheap way out by instead continuing to build the additional 43 stories onto each tower. I won't bother to ask where you got the information that the fireproofing was not viable or did not perform to every 1970 standard (which did not include being rammed by a plane, and asbestos was never tested in such a way either, to my knowledge). You are clearly incapable of answering a direct question.

However to make the WTC project profiable, the towers had to be built over 100 stories.

You really don't know much, do you? Those towers were a white elephant for years, and as far as I know they never did reach full occupancy. Saving nearly half the cost of construction by topping them out at 67 floors would have made them almost instantly profitable.

Now, since you refuse to elaborate on the "cheap construction" of the World Trade Center, you're hereby invited again to shut the f#ck up. I won't respond to any more posts from you unless they are a detailed and sourced explanation of the CHEAP CONSTRUCTION of those Towers.

Got it? I sure hope so; an amoeba would have understood the question by now.

84 posted on 05/01/2002 2:58:22 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Fry
Is innovation a bad thing? When you run into difficulty, should you just throw your hands up and say never mind?

Innovation of corse is not a bad thing.

However, in this case a new fireproofing technique was immediately invented which was "claimed" to be as effective as concrete or asbestos.

85 posted on 05/01/2002 3:00:00 PM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: dead
bump for later
86 posted on 05/01/2002 3:05:36 PM PDT by iceskater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
You really don't know much, do you? Those towers were a white elephant for years, and as far as I know they never did reach full occupancy.

Rockerfeller moved many New York State offices to the WTC when it opened to achieve somewhat-near occupancy, and keep the WTC from being labeled a "white elephant".

Saving nearly half the cost of construction by topping them out at 67 floors would have made them almost instantly profitable.

Not true!

In fact it would have created huge losses for the WTC.

Think land acquisition costs, design costs, overhead costs etc.

87 posted on 05/01/2002 3:10:43 PM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Tuco-bad
Nothing in that post about cheap construction, Tukey. So I'm not interested in enlightening you with the WTC tenants' list or anything else. Now STFU.
88 posted on 05/01/2002 3:17:31 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
Nothing in that post about cheap construction,

"Cheap" meaning the WTC should have been topped at 67 stories, but was continued so that the project would not be a huge financial failure.

89 posted on 05/01/2002 3:36:28 PM PDT by Tuco-bad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: dead
obfuscates to the point that you just get bored with engaging him on the point any further.

Yeah, I'm there now, dude...what a waste of time.

90 posted on 05/01/2002 3:42:48 PM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
I should have warned you sooner.
91 posted on 05/01/2002 7:03:51 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: all
bttt
92 posted on 05/20/2002 2:12:48 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: stevev
Your brother's story has me in tears. I'm so sorry you lost him. He was a hero.
93 posted on 05/20/2002 2:46:01 PM PDT by texasbluebell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: dead

Anniversary BUMP.


94 posted on 09/11/2012 8:17:18 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Thanks for the bump. I hadn’t read this since I posted the link. Very powerful.


95 posted on 09/11/2012 5:32:24 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: dead

That was one 9-11 story that really stuck with me for some reason.


96 posted on 09/11/2012 8:25:32 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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