They did. It would be irresponsible not to. The probability is small but the damage is enormous so you have to take it seriously. The problem is that the bureaucrats second-guessed the engineers (as bureaucrats are wont to do) and forced them to jury-rig the upper half of the towers instead of building them the way they were designed. As I said, there's much controversy over how much effect this had. But to me, the fact that the building was designed to withstand the impact of an airliner crash, and DIDN'T, means that we should at least think about blaming the bureaucrats. Leaving the asbestos out of HALF of those two buildings probably saved something like two lives that would have been lost to cancer over 100 years. Instead, by taking the risk and tempting fate, we've lost 3,000 people.

I keep saying that the environmentalists don't care who they kill.

Moderator note:
Posts 1-5 split from Physicist challenges official 9-11 story (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=77765)

I keep saying that the environmentalists don't care who they kill.As long as it's only humans, it's okay. ;)

Seriously, they like killing animals too. It's Orwellian. They kill animals to save them, have for over 40 years.

Seriously, they like killing animals too. It's Orwellian. They kill animals to save them, have for over 40 years.

OK. I'll bite. What are you talking about? You're not confusing PETA with environmentalists are you? Which environmentalists are you talking about? They suggest a wide range of policies? Hell, some of them focus on drinking water and not on animals. I don't know, I'm glad someone was concerned about PCBs enough to challenge industry. Did this concern on environmentalists kill some animals?

OK. I'll bite. What are you talking about? You're not confusing PETA with environmentalists are you? Which environmentalists are you talking about? They suggest a wide range of policies? Hell, some of them focus on drinking water and not on animals. I don't know, I'm glad someone was concerned about PCBs enough to challenge industry. Did this concern on environmentalists kill some animals?

They're pretty much the same thing. ALF, ELF, they use violence to push an agenda to "protect the animals" or "protect the environment."

They're pretty much the same thing. ALF, ELF, they use violence to push an agenda to "protect the animals" or "protect the environment."

your straw manning

They're pretty much the same thing. ALF, ELF, they use violence to push an agenda to "protect the animals" or "protect the environment."

No, 'they' are not. Environmentalists include all sorts of organizations and individuals, most of whom do not advocate violence. You don't know what you are talking about. You want to lump all environmentalists in one category so that you can dismiss them. Maybe none of the rivers near where you live have caught on fire, but I am damn glad that the non-violent environmentalists in my state got pissed off, collected signatures, lobbies, went public, had news conferences and so on and now the rivers near where my parents live don't catch on fire anymore.

Oddly enough most environmentalist groups use the media and legislature and do not use weapons, just as these groups did.

But they all benefit from the actions of the terrorist faction. The existence of a hammer that they can swing against the witches that they hunt changes the way that they do things, makes them feel more secure in acting viciously. They can say that they're not being terrorists when they abuse the law to shut down a meat producer, or when they abuse the law to shut down a breeder or someone's private menagerie, but the behavior is the same. They are out to destroy.

I HAVE to dismiss the animal rights people and the environmentalists.

Violent acts against people and businesses create an atmosphere of fear and oppression. The Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front are known well enough. People know that they could be the target of random violence including the shooting of their animals, the torching of their home, car, or business, and I am in contact with people who feel that they have to keep their heads down about human rights issues. Just the number of people who I know who are keeping their heads down might be enough to turn things around and get the animal rights people and environmentalists off our backs.

When we keep our heads down we are afraid to cross picket lines, to start campaigns for human rights, to own or breed animals, to go to town meetings, or to challenge them in any meaningful way.

By your logic we can dismiss all religious people, men, capitalists, business people, anti-environmentalist - who have been violent on occasion - and so on.

By your logic we can dismiss all religious people, men, capitalists, business people, anti-environmentalist - who have been violent on occasion - and so on.


No kidding?

If we are talking about them forcefully invading other people's lives, they don't deserve a lot of credibility.

No kidding?

If we are talking about them forcefully invading other people's lives, they don't deserve a lot of credibility.

So you think capitalism is bad because some capitalists are willing to use violence.

You think men should not be respected because, for example, some men are rapists.

Religious people should be dismissed because some are violent.

And so on. I am sure you can put whatever group you like in this forumla also.

Football players?

I think that environmentalists and animal rights activists use the atmosphere of fear that is generated by the violence that some of them use. They can make their hands appear to be squeaky clean when they are as dirty as a 19th century slaughterhouse. They know that the violence has diminished the opposition to their goals.

I think that environmentalists and animal rights activists use the atmosphere of fear that is generated by the violence that some of them use. They can make their hands appear to be squeaky clean when they are as dirty as a 19th century slaughterhouse. They know that the violence has diminished the opposition to their goals.
WEll, feminists make the same arguments about men. Do you agree with them? They say that all men benefit from the culture of fear created by a few of them?

Since when does violence diminish opposition. You think all those middle class people sending money in to environmental groups are doing it out of fear?

And you are not responding to my point. You keep claiming that you can dismiss the entire group because of the actions of a few. Well, can we do that with men, capitalists, religious people. How about priests and other religious leaders. Can we dismiss all of them because some of them abuse children?

We pretty much can dismiss them all, to tell the truth. So what?

I keep saying that the environmentalists don't care who they kill.
The risk of asbestos is completely overblown. I wonder, has a single case of mesothelioma or asbestosis ever been linked to exposure to asbestos insulation in a building by the people who live/work there? We had guys in WW2 literally shoveling the stuff into the bottom of boats in "white cloud" conditions (meaning there was so much asbestos in the air that you could hardly see thru it). But even among these guys, the vast majority of cases of mesothelioma was among smokers.

A non-smoker tends to cough up the asbestos particles he inhales, whereas a smoker suffers paralysis of his cilia and the asbestos stays in his lungs. So it is the smoker that developes complications, in most cases.

The level of asbestos exposure in a building with asbestos floor tile or insulation is probably minimal except during instalation or removal of the asbestos.

That's the ironic thing about all the "asbestos abatement" projects we wasted millions of dollars on. If any damage was caused by the asbestos in those old buildings, it was probably a result of the removal itself.

So how did public health and OSHA and building codes and so forth get confused with "environmentalists" ?

So how did public health and OSHA and building codes and so forth get confused with "environmentalists" ?
One group of busy-bodies is pretty much like another.

We pretty much can dismiss them all, to tell the truth. So what?
Well, usually people don't put forth reasoning that can be used to dismiss themselves and their own position. I have pointed out how your reasoning - that some members of a group are violent means that the entire group can be dismissed - means that your own ideas and you can be dismissed.

The risk of asbestos is completely overblown. I wonder, has a single case of mesothelioma or asbestosis ever been linked to exposure to asbestos insulation in a building by the people who live/work there? We had guys in WW2 literally shoveling the stuff into the bottom of boats in "white cloud" conditions (meaning there was so much asbestos in the air that you could hardly see thru it). But even among these guys, the vast majority of cases of mesothelioma was among smokers.

A non-smoker tends to cough up the asbestos particles he inhales, whereas a smoker suffers paralysis of his cilia and the asbestos stays in his lungs. So it is the smoker that developes complications, in most cases.

The level of asbestos exposure in a building with asbestos floor tile or insulation is probably minimal except during instalation or removal of the asbestos.

That's the ironic thing about all the "asbestos abatement" projects we wasted millions of dollars on. If any damage was caused by the asbestos in those old buildings, it was probably a result of the removal itself.

Well, that proves that environmentalists don't care who they kill. Let's start treating the environment like the Chinese do. God I miss when Ohio rivers burned and it rained soot in my sister's city.

So how did public health and OSHA and building codes and so forth get confused with "environmentalists" ?

This started with comments about the way that the so-called environmentalists persuaded or forced the builders of the World Trade Center to stop using asbestos partway through the construction of the building. This may have contributed to the collapse or made the collapse happen much sooner. Like I said, they don't care who they kill, whether it's the shuttle astronauts or pet hedgehogs or anything.

Controversy

In recent days, allegations have been made that the lack of asbestos in the twin towers contributed to the rapid collapse of the buildings. The New York Times article referred to in the second paragraph: Did the Ban on Asbestos Lead to Loss of Life examined claims that the non-asbestos containing fireproofing materials used during the construction of the WTC performed less effectively than similar asbestos products thereby shortening the time available for occupants to escape. Most of the experts consulted were unanimous: "no standard treatment of the steel, asbestos or otherwise, could have averted the collapse of the towers in the extraordinarily hot and violent blaze." The need for detailed research on building designs and materials was endorsed by many including Dr Yogesh Jaluria, an engineering expert from Rutgers University, who said: "tests for very violent and very large-scale fires have not been done." The sober tone and balanced approach of the New York Times article contrasts with a one-sided and spurious article which appeared on the Junkscience.com website. Steven Malloy, the author of Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives

Keep up that junk science hatred. Oh, yes. Some scientists, take for example scientists who develop torture devices, are advocates of violence. Shall we dismiss scientists now also. On what will you base your spurious overgeneralizations next. What group will back up your hypothesis that does not have members who have used violence?

Keep up that junk science hatred. Oh, yes. Some scientists, take for example scientists who develop torture devices, are advocates of violence. Shall we dismiss scientists now also. On what will you base your spurious overgeneralizations next. What group will back up your hypothesis that does not have members who have used violence?

I think that you are doing what it takes to defend environmentalists from charges that they are going overboard, at best. I'm saying that in the case of environmentalists and animal rights activists they have indeed crossed the line of using violence when they could have used reason if they had any, and that in their case they have proven that they aren't worth listening to.

I think that you are doing what it takes to defend environmentalists from charges that they are going overboard, at best. I'm saying that in the case of environmentalists and animal rights activists they have indeed crossed the line of using violence when they could have used reason if they had any, and that in their case they have proven that they aren't worth listening to.

But 'they' haven't gone overboard.
Some did. Most didn't. Most do precisely what you say they 'could' have done: use reasoning.
You disagree. You have other priorities. Whatever. But there is little logic in dismissing a group because of the actions of a few.
You are not using good reasoning here. You are saying that a few environmentals have used or advocated violence so therefore we should ignore even what other environmentalists suggest. That is unreasonable. The WTC would never have been built at all following that logic. Oh, some business men and politicians want to build a building, well members of both those groups have cheated the public, lied and killed. We can dismiss their claims that this is a good business project.
The ones who wanted to put asbestos into the building were probably
men
businessmen
in other words members of groups that have used violence.

So the putting of asbestos in the building was done by people who
don't care how many they kill.

Your logic is poor.

Asbestos was put in the building in an attempt to prevent deaths and might have prevented thousands of deaths had it been there. The connection between asbestos and cancer isn't nearly as certain as the connection between fire and painful, immediate death.

Asbestos was put in the building in an attempt to prevent deaths and might have prevented thousands of deaths had it been there. The connection between asbestos and cancer isn't nearly as certain as the connection between fire and painful, immediate death.
So therefore environmentalists do not care who they kill. Interesting. You have never addressed the weakness of your logic of saying it is correct to dismiss a group because of the actions of a small % of its members. Now we are arguing about asbestos. Which, as a matter of fact, is not what is generally thought of as an environmental issue. A public health issue. I am quite sure some environmentalists engaged in the issue, just as certain large companies. As we know large companies have, at times, not given a shit about people, take Bhophal. So we should have dismissed the safety claims of the companies who wanted to install asbestos in WTC because some business men have used violence or killed people. Hey, let's look at Nestle's and their baby formulas in Africa. Since you cannot address a simply logical issue there is no point in talking to you. I suspect you are content to never address the issue and to never be bothered by the illogic of it.

Short term gain for you, but in the long term you end up continuing to spout nonsense.

Adieu

Asbestos was put in the building in an attempt to prevent deaths and might have prevented thousands of deaths had it been there. The connection between asbestos and cancer isn't nearly as certain as the connection between fire and painful, immediate death.

um this was done well before terrorism was a threat so is it not stupid to blame them for not forseeing something so far the future