This left-wing site also has interesting articles on the September 11
attacks, as well as the recent London bombings, electoral fraud, etc.:
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/.
I don't know exactly what to believe in any of these cases, but the
official stories tend to be rather unconvincing.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Here's a pretty interesting article...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
Mike
From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ricochetboy
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:09 AM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: WTC 9/11 myths and answersI think my health is finally almoxt back. This got me googling on a
topic that has been stirring for a long time in my mind. The buildings
fell because the fireprooging failed. This the 911 commision omits.
They assert however, with little evidence to back them up, that the
initial impact shaved off enough fireproofing to cause the failure.
They refused to seriously delve into the question of the adequacy of
the foreproofing material and wether it would be adequate even for a
normal fire. A very carefully worded comment by ASTM gingerly asks
the question. Asbestos was banned during the construction of the WTC.
A wonderful article in Foc a ew days later and even in the NYT
speculates that the absendce of asbestos in the fireprofing may have
caused the disaster. The accepted materail used until then was WR
Graces Monocoat. I have been involved much to my regret in the
removal of this product. It is hard. It takes considerable soaking and
pounding with a hammer to remove it. Absent soaking it is very hard.
There were no standrds for hardness, adherance , wind resistance etc.
in the substitutes at the time. Only furnace tests. The substitute is
soft flakey and can be blown off easily. A bnrush by the hand can
remove it. Even as late as 1998 when I quit the horrid asbestos
removal consulting biz, the substitutes were soft. Thus the
commision's assertion that the impact removed the fireproofing seems
little more than a convenient assertion. To seriously question the
adequacy of the fireproofing lessens the contribution of the
terrorists. Of course, then why didn't the foreproofing protect the
adjacent buildings that did not suffer direct impact, especially
building seven.
To add to the tradgedy is the fact that the type of asbestos used in
Monokote is not a health hazard. McDonald et al did one of the most
elegant retrospective and prospective studies in the history of
epidemiology comparing the3 health effects of the three major types of
asbestos. Te compared the health of miners and millers of the fobers
in Canada , south Africa and Australia, each minin different types of
asbestos. The canadian miners had no health effects as compared to
canadian hard rock miners. The South Africans had significant disease
andd the poor asutralians died like flies. The Candians mined and
milled Chrysotile. The asbestiform of serpentine, the state rock of
California. Had Monokate been used it is likely the towers would still
be standing or at least many tousands of people would still alive. It
is good that foc and the NYT still keep the articles on the web, but
why they don't followup is disturbing. Monokote needs to be re
legalized for safety's sake. Google asbestos fireproofing wtc. I
well be following up on this topic. PhilYahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos