Concrete in the WTC?

[parky76]

Question #1. Was there any concrete in the outer structural beams or the inner core beams?

Question #2. Did ANY concrete from the floor sections of the towers, assuming thats where the only concrete was, survive the collapse?

Question #3. Does concrete ever survive from a controlled demolition?

[R.Mackey]

1. The mechanical floors -- the so-called "beam framed" floors -- had their beams encased in concrete. There was no concrete inside any columns that I'm aware of. The columns were sheathed in gypsum board and plaster. See NCSTAR1-1.

2. Even Dr. Jones has reported on large chunks of concrete surviving the collapse. No entire floors, of course, but it was not all bashed into dust.

3. Of course it does. Remember that most buildings that are demo'd are a lot lower. The floors don't fall as far, and they don't have as much structure falling upon them. The WTC Towers would have had ten times the gravitational energy per pound of an equivalently built 11 story building (e.g. 100 times as much total energy).

[parky76]

Interesting. I guess my next question should be:

If the WTC towers and building 7 were a controlled demolition, what SHOULD it have looked like?

I have seen several videos of controlled demos..and they all go from the bottom up..not the top down. For the wtc towers to have been a controlled demo, the NWO geniuses who cant fake an FDR must have timed the charges to go off exactly at the moment that the above floors came down on them. That, I think is impossible, considering the amazing other so-called blunders the NWO made when faking the Pentagon crash, the Shanksville crash, and the Titanic "sinking".

[Gravy]

1) Only in the basement levels and mechanical floors.

2) There are numerous photos showing parts of slabs and large chunks. It can be hard to identify where the concrete in photos came from, though. There was a tremendous amount of concrete in the plaza, mall, and parking garages.

3) Yes, but since the gravitational potential energy in WTC 1, 2, and 7 was far higher than in any structure ever demolished, it's best to be careful about making such comparisons. Controlled demolitions are largely done to reduce a building's structure, including concrete, to manageable pieces: not with explosives but with gravity. Interestingly, an architect sent me photos of a multi-story building that was demolished by hand, and the whole thing was reduced to a small pile, with just chunks of concrete.

edit: what Mackey said.

[R.Mackey]

Well, given that the plane/debris crashes and fires eliminate any possibility of a conventional demolition, there's not much to compare to.

One could create many possible hypothetical demolition setups. The one I favor is destruction of a single floor in the WTC Towers, since Bazant et. al. have proven a single floor collapse leads to a progressive collapse, so long as you do it below the 98th floor or so. I've worked out that a floor could be destroyed with about 120 kg of TNT, so say 200 kg with some safety factor. So basically you'd hear a big CCRACKKK! with some shrapnel and glass breakage, and then it would collapse basically as we saw before.

No way to escape detection on the seismographs, though.

WTC 7 is harder to figure. The obvious place to blow it would be in the transfer trusses over the ConEd station. It'd probably twist and make a huge mess.

Of course, since all three structures provably could have collapsed with no explosives, and since all three showed clear and unambiguous signs of deterioration over time, there's no need nor possibility for explosives at all.

[leftysergeant]

The concrete floors were relatively thin sheets, poured over rebar in shallow pans. Not very resistant to breaking when tumbling end-over-end in a mass of whirling metal elements. There are pictures of fist-sized chunks on the pile, and a couiple "pancakes" of floor segments, several together, on the Hangar 17 site. The lighter colored one included here may be concrete, or it may be glass. According to Jones, it is metal. Just one more example of his sloppiness.

[Gravy]

Interesting. I guess my next question should be:

If the WTC towers and building 7 were a controlled demolition, what SHOULD it have looked like?Lots and lots of very big charges going off. Keep in mind that there are conspiracists crazy enough to suggest that the concrete pulverization and ejection of exterior columns was all done by explosives (silent explosives, apparently). A while back Mackey and others calculated roughly how much explosives would be needed just to pulverize the concrete in one tower. It was an absurd number of tons of TNT equivalent.

[Gravy]

Those photos show the same piece from the same angle, btw, lefty. There are close-up photos that show it to be mostly concrete. It's certainly not congealed metal: there's unburned paper embedded in it!

[e^n]

I should also point out that I believe there were some concrete column encasements at the hat truss level. This is purely based on some comments I saw in another thread and I can't remember the immediate post unfortunately. I will have a look.

[Unfit4Command]

The best photographs I've seen of floor slabs in the lower levels of the Twin Towers are from Steve Spak's WTC gallery.
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html

You can also just look at photographs and several chunks of concrete are visible.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z80/911pictures/Twin%20Towers/Ground%20Zero/concrete4.jpg

All of the concrete clearly wasn't pulverized into dust. 911myths also has some good information on the subject.
http://www.911myths.com/html/pulverised_concrete.html

[leftysergeant]

Hmmm....

They look like two different objects. They do not even appear to be the same material. Has a photographer with an aggenda manipulated the lower image in some way? Adjusted color and so forth? Camera angle is definitely different.

Either way, I fail to see how even a slip-shod investigator like Jones got that being metal that had melted and formed around other metal.

Anyone know the difference in melting points of various grades of steel? Seems to me that had it actually been molten metal settling in a cavity with all that rebar, it would have done something to the rebar.

[Gravy]

Oh, lord, lefty, let's not do this photo analysis thing again, okay? I'm not going to point all of the many identical features. Just look at the rebar. The lower one may be a still from a video.

[hard lines]

Also.....

In the express elevator shafts, beams framing in the north-south direction
were typically encased in concrete.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf

[leftysergeant]

I brought up the image-diddling question because I wonder whether Jones or whoever tipped him off may have tried to make it look like metal. It does seem to fool twoofers, but I saw it as glass. Whatever, glass is closer to concrete than is metal, in the way that it fractures, anyway. When I pointed that out to some twoofers on another forum, they all got very exercised when I pointed out the cleavage on broken surfaces. They obviously needed it to metal for their own emotional needs.

[Norseman]

Jones used the lower photo in his (toilet)paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?". But it is very obvious that it is concrete. The attached text Jones wrote is just amazing. The first time I read the paper my jaws dropped on my knees, and they still do. This is the part were you do not need to be an expert in anything to understand how far out Jones&Co really are.

Jones used a fairly good quality version of the photo in his paper. To me the photo looks like an ordinary flash photo. I am still astonished and bewildered that he can claim with a straight face that it is solidified metal and not reinforced concrete. (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf page 9)

Even Richard Gage of ae911truth.org use this photo as evidence. Who wants to hire an architect who can not see the difference between solidified metal and reinforced concrete?

[Norseman]

Lots and lots of very big charges going off. Keep in mind that there are conspiracists crazy enough to suggest that the concrete pulverization and ejection of exterior columns was all done by explosives (silent explosives, apparently). A while back Mackey and others calculated roughly how much explosives would be needed just to pulverize the concrete in one tower. It was an absurd number of tons of TNT equivalent.

On the website of no other than Jowenko, there are two videos that show the real life work needed to place all those tons of explosives in the floors of the towers to secure a complete pulverization.

Go to http://jowenko.killerapps.info/index.php/1,16,1 and watch "Viaduct" and "Viaduct in Brussels".

And the numbers of holes needed to be drilled would be ridicules. One hole for each square meter gives close to 1 million holes for the two towers. Two holes gives 2 million, 3 holes gives........

(One floor about 4000 sq m x 110 floors x 2 towers)

[Gravy]

On the website of no other than Jowenko, there are two videos that show the real life work needed to place all those tons of explosives in the floors of the towers to secure a complete pulverization.

Go to http://jowenko.killerapps.info/index.php/1,16,1 and watch "Viaduct" and "Viaduct in Brussels".

And the numbers of holes needed to be drilled would be ridicules. One hole for each square meter gives close to 1 million holes for the two towers. Two holes gives 2 million, 3 holes gives........

(One floor about 4000 sq m x 110 floors x 2 towers)Excellent find, Norseman. In addition to those two videos, I encourage people to see what happens to the top of the concrete water tower when it hits the ground.

[Par]

Not least as it’s quite nicely shot, too.

[PhantomWolf]

Those photos show the same piece from the same angle, btw, lefty. There are close-up photos that show it to be mostly concrete. It's certainly not congealed metal: there's unburned paper embedded in it!

I know I have seen those images, but can you point me in the right direction?

[Reality Believer]

I know I have seen those images, but can you point me in the right direction?

Here is a clip from the BBC program that shows the "meteorite".
swH1WaIMkNc

[Norseman]

I know I have seen those images, but can you point me in the right direction?

Here:
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=35

Picture #31-37 and #39-40.