It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Reinforced Concrete of the Pentagon

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
In 2007, Structure Magazine published an article about repairing the reinforced concrete of the light wells of the Pentagon.

Source


Constructed in just 16 months during WWII, the Pentagon, the world’s largest office building, today is undergoing a complete renovation, rehabilitation, and modernization program. A program with the goal of a minimum 50 year design life has been mandated by Penren (www.pentagon.renovation.mil), the governing agency for the Pentagon renovation. That’s right, it is anticipated that repairs will last at least 50 years! Taking over 10 years to complete, every component, the walls, the floors, the roofs, the windows, the mechanical and electrical systems, everything, is being renovated or replaced. This article is about one component - the single largest component in the Pentagon. The concrete. All structural elements of the Pentagon, except one, are constructed of reinforced concrete. And that concrete is sadly deteriorating. This is the story of how to breathe at least 50 years of new life into deteriorating concrete is told in this article.



Here are some images of the light wells from the article:







The one element of the Pentagon not constructed of reinforced concrete is the outermost perimeter wall. It is the limestone wall that everyone sees on the outside of the building. This article is primarily about the remainder of the 1,000,000 square feet of the lightwell walls which are now undergoing a complete Repair, Rehabilitation, and Protection program. The Pentagon consists of five separate rings, each approximately 90 feet wide with approximately 30 feet between the rings. The space between the rings is known as the lightwells. Thus, we call the perimeter walls of each ring the lightwell walls. The lightwell walls, constructed of poured in place, reinforced concrete, are both bearing and shear walls.


Now, according to the linked article, the only limestone wall is the outermost perimeter wall, yet according to our government, this is the Punchout hole, from the C ring light well, and that sure looks like limestone to me.



Were there more limestone walls than the author of Structure Magazine was aware, or was the above not a light well wall, and in fact a perimeter wall?


edit on 22-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
You may or may not know that adding simple ashes into the concrete mix can make it 800 times stronger. It would cause the companies to lose money to make it so strong.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
It's 2 layers of brick and a plaster wall.

No concrete, no rebar.




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
does anyone else find it funny that the plane crashed into an area where right next to it theirs a no parking sign?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Yes, and yet the article claims the only wall that was not reinforced concrete, was the perimeter wall.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by camouflaged
 






posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


The wall behind the E Ring outer wall is brick, not concrete


When the Pentagon was designed and built in the early 1940s," reflected Walter Lee Evey, director of the Pentagon Renovation Program Office, "there were a number of concessions made to a country at war. The original designers exercised economies in construction to lessen the impact on strategic materials needed to equip the military." The extensive use of reinforced concrete and non-reinforced masonry was one concession. Certainly the threat of any kind of terrorist attack on the building was far from the thoughts of the original designers. As a result, the Pentagon was constructed with a thin limestone facade over a brick infill between reinforced concrete floors, structurally supported by a reinforced concrete beam and column frame. Enough to protect from the elements but not from the potential forces of significant blast events.


Also are aware that there are no interiior partition walls on the 2 lowest floors? No concrete wall between E Ring
(outer wall) and the C Ring wall to the internal roadway


This argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Pentagon's design. In fact, the light wells between the C- and D-ring and D- and E-ring are only three stories deep. The first and second stories span the distance between the Pentagon's facade and the punctured C-ring wall, which faces a ground-level courtyard. There are no masonry walls in this space, only load-bearing columns. Thus it would be possible for an aircraft part that breached the facade to travel through this area on the ground floor, miss the columns, and puncture the C-ring wall without having encountering anything more than unsubstantial gypsum walls and furniture in-between.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Only the outermost perimeter wall had a limestone facade. That's the outside wall facing the public spaces. Not the inside walls.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Yes, I am aware. And yet the article clearly states the only limestone was the outer perimeter, with everything else, including the light well walls being reinforced concrete.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Only the outermost perimeter wall had a limestone facade. That's the outside wall facing the public spaces. Not the inside walls.


We are in agreement.

And yet the article clearly states everything except the exterior perimeter wall was concrete.

I ask again, does that hole look like it is in a wall of reinforced concrete, or limestone?
edit on 22-8-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Read the Pentagon Performance Report - it explains it better than that article.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Provide it for us please.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Go to Google, type in Pentagon Performance Report, hit "enter".



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Thanks for your contribution Hooper.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by hooper
 


Thanks for your contribution Hooper.



You're welcome. Curious - all this time and all this "research" and you have no clue about the Pentagon Building Performance Report? Or are you just not telling the whole truth?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


No, I just want to see if your fingers are painted on.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
This is just absolutely crazy. 60 years ago the pentagon was built in 16 months, and now in the "computer age" it's going to take 10-50 years?!



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


40 years ago they went to the moon using enough computing power that could fit on a floppy disk, yet today it's out of reach.

In the land of make believe, everything is possible, except the impossible, at which time it becomes unaffordable.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
This is just absolutely crazy. 60 years ago the pentagon was built in 16 months, and now in the "computer age" it's going to take 10-50 years?!
Watch HGTV's Holmes on Homes. It is ALMOST ALWAYS more expensive and takes longer to rebuild a home built improperly than it is to tear the whole dang thing down and build it from scratch. Since there are things about the building that are not up to modern standards in rediculously sound buildings for the extremely paranoid, yet they don't want to start from scratch, it's going to take forever, and cost us an arm and a leg.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
This is just absolutely crazy. 60 years ago the pentagon was built in 16 months, and now in the "computer age" it's going to take 10-50 years?!


Well, first, I think they mean the repairs are supposed to last 50 years, not take 50 years to complete. In so far as the time to make the repairs, please bear in mind that when the Pentagon was constructed the construction means and methods did not have to include protecting the operations in the existing building. Big difference.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join