The Big FEMA Lie, The Towers Had A Concrete Core: PROOF, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 21-5-2006 @ 03:38 PM by HowardRoark
Originally posted by Zaphod58
From one page that I read, the WTC was 60/40 concrete to steel ratio, but with the WTC it was estimated to be 40/60 concrete to steel. So from what they're saying there WAS concrete, but it was MUCH less than in previous and most high rise buildings.

The most noticeable change in the modern high-rise construction is a trend to using more steel and shaping lightweight steel into tubes, curves, and angles to increase its load bearing capability. The WTC has tubular steel bearing walls, fluted corrugated steel flooring and bent bar steel truss floor supports. To a modern high rise building designer steel framing is economical and concrete is a costly material. For a high-rise structural frame: columns, girders, floors and walls, steel provides greater strength per pound than concrete. Concrete is heavy. Concrete creates excessive weight in the structure of a building. Architects, designers , and builders all know if you remove concrete from a structure you have a building that weights less. So if you create a lighter building you can use columns, girders and beams of smaller dimensions, or better yet you can use the same size steel framing and build a taller structure. In News York City where space is limited you must build high. The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams. To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors. To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel. Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

The fire service believes there is a direct relation of fire resistance to mass of structure. The more mass the more fire resistance. The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure. The structures that limit and confine fires best, and suffer fewer collapses are reinforced concrete pre WWII buildings such as housing projects and older high rise buildings like the empire state building, The more concrete, the more fire resistance; and the more concrete the less probability of total collapse. The evolution of high- rise construction can be seen, by comparing the empire state building to the WTC. My estimate is the ratio of concrete to steel in the empire state building is 60/40. The ratio of concrete to steel in the WTC is 40/60. The tallest building in the world, the Petronas Towers, in Kula Lumpur, Malaysia, is more like the concrete to steel ratio of the empire state building than concrete to steel ratio of the WTC. Donald Trump in New York City has constructed the tallest reinforced concrete high-rise residence building.

vincentdunn.com...


Did you notice that in that description there is nothing that indicates that any conrete was used in the columns?

The floor slabs, yes, but in the columns? no.


reply posted on 21-5-2006 @ 04:10 PM by Jack Tripper
Originally posted by AgentSmith
How come no-ones answering how you can tell the difference between the rebar from the floors and the alleged rebar from the core in the pictures of ground zero?
I'm sure it's obivous, but I'd like to know so I can investigate further myself.


Because as bsbray and anok clearly showed in the other thread....there was no rebar in the floors.

The pic you posted was from the basement.

The rebar there would have been burried in the massive amount of tonnage of pulverized concrete that we know it got burried in.

Originally posted by bsbray11

No, there was no rebar in the floor slabs.

The 4" floor slabs would need no vertical strength from rebar considering they were laying flat on the trusses (not to mention only 4 inches high), which gave them all the support they needed and then some.

Any rebar would have been from concrete that was set vertically. An image of an original document appears to have been posted in another thread. Look at it as an example. The only rebar provided was for upright concrete that needed it, as needed.

Btw, I have an 18-minute documentary saved on my computer on how the WTC Towers were constructed. The documentary leaves out specifics on the core, but it shows workers laying down the floor slabs. If you'd like to watch them do it and see there's no rebar, only trusses underneath, maybe I can find some way to send it to you. It's about 50mb though, so it might be a tricky send.

And a diagram of a truss/slab from FEMA:



No rebar in there.


Originally posted by ANOK
A still from the vid...Pouring the concrete floors. No rebar....


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 14 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags