Anyone know anything about the reinforced concrete theory?

submitted by Jesus from (self.911truth)

Were the core columns of the twin towers 100% steel, or were they reinforced concrete with steel rebar? I cannot seem to find any original blueprints of the twin towers, only ones during the silverstein ownership and a few documentaries that show very little.

I have found an old NPR documentary and an old architech mag. from the 60's depicting the core being reinforced concrete. Which is very odd. If so, then Gage is a controlled oppostion but there's little to go off, so I'm wondering if anyone else has seem any of the original blueprints from the 60's through the 70's of what kind of core the towers had?

The new tower features a reinforced concreate core. The little steel that existed in the rubble from the core and some odd pictures of slabs of thick concrete do resemble a reinforced concrete core of some sort.

all 29 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]fred_red_beans 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

185,101 tons of structural steel were removed from ground zero.

The steel removed was treated like garbage, not crucial evidence.

From 9-11 Research, which is not A&E:

https://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet.

The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.

Blueprints:

https://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're the man! :-)

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I think 100% steel

https://cdn.historydaily.org/content/52789/412056c116e0a260c4099227f5a88c45.jpg

https://cdn.historydaily.org/content/52789/ed05520a5d4a1f3a2ea2953808c500a6.jpg

[–]Ian 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This. And rather the "cheap steel"-con if it comes to structural conspiracies.

Still, it's a longer stretch than bombs for me.

[–]thefadd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Typically, in construction, one would wrap steel in concrete. But the concrete isn’t for vertical structural integrity. Just because concrete is used in construction doesn’t mean the buildings weren’t nearly identical to every other steel building ever constructed that never collapsed. It’s in the reports.

This is very basic level logic and honestly a bizarre question.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

concrete is great in compression. Vertical structural integrity is concrete's forte.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is correct.

Concrete performs poorly under tension. Steel reinforcement is added to improve it's tensile performance.

This can be a problem for structural longevity. The water which is trapped in concrete will eventually rust the steel. Steel expands when it rusts, and applies tensile forces to the concrete, and damages it from within.

So, I doubt that the support columns were encased in steel. The architects/engineers would easily identify this failure mode, and
Unless it was intentionally designed in (which is unlikely).

The concrete foundation is almost certainly reinforced concrete, as it should only see compression force.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Wrong again.

Citing the reports reveals you as a shill.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

The towers were not built following the original designs. A spray on foam was used instead of concrete over the beams. Chesp redesign right from the start. Built to fail.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Insulating spray foam protects steel during fires.

Kevin Ryan confirmed this at UL, which contradicted/debunked the first official story.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The original design called for concrete, not spray foam which can flake off.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Source?

Edit: FYI - This spray foam can resist shotgun blasts. It is quite resilient.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Do you have any photos of a reinforces concrete core. I think they're referring to the base structure of the building with this reference.

The main supporting columns are steel, and the outter walls were to. They had to control demo this building, and blow up each floor from the inside, because the outside wasb comprised of steel plates that were bolted together.

The two towers were literally encased in steel plates. Armored.

I'm also suspicious about A&E for not naming names.

Some like Kevin Ryan are legit. He even wrote a book called "another 19" where he identifies real suspects, instead of the fake Muslim Patsy's.

[–]thefadd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I’ve seen photos of what are supposed sliced or detonated steel columns from the twin powers. I’m not going to look for them for you.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Good.

No one is interested in your disinfo.

[–]thefadd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

My “disinfo” supports your narrative. What a bunch of paranoid O’Briens on this site.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You've stated that you're not willing to provide evidence, and your disinfo is a red herring.

Feel free to support your claims, by providing some evidence.

[–]thefadd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Who gives a shit. I have no interest in "proving" shit to you? What makes me care what you think? I'm here for you not me. Don't be a jerk.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Something.

[–]thefadd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

There are no “core columns.” The core has nothing to do with how those buildings keep themselves up. Steel buildings are built using exoskeletons propped from outside.

The buildings’ external walls collapsed. Otherwise, the collapse would have looked differently. That’s why the fire argument holds no water.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

We can agree that the fire argument holds no water.

The external walls collapsed under the pressure of the explosives that were placed and detonated in the buildings.

[–]thefadd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes, that is what the images I saw of the "sliced" steel girders was supposed to "prove" -- that charges were placed in specific places to create a foot print demolition. I don't know how many footprint demolitions you have ever seen but they all clearly look exactly the same.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

How about the video link of the Israeli "art students" who installed the explosives?

Did you happen to take a look at that video? The evidence is compelling.

[–]thefadd 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All of the evidence is compelling. I've seen all the videos and photos a million times. Even the one of the guy masturbating to the planes flying into the Twin Towers.

The thing I miss most about the end of regretsy was all the homemade 9/11 memorial kitsch.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Source? I'm curious where your disinfo comes from.

[–]raven9 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The steel core strcture was integral. The floor trusses were suspended between it and the perimeter steel structure.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The core towers were steel with a cheapass spray on insualtion, instead of the originally designed thick materials. It wasn't bult to last, but to become a future ghetto.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Gage is very accessible. He lives, or has a home in North Idaho, and invites people over to his house for discussions. I've got a friend that regularly went, and invited me.

Not saying anything about the man, other than at least he's accessible; which I'd guess if he was in to shillary, he wouldn't be quite that easily accessed on a regular weekly meeting night.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Chomsky is also accessable, but he's 100% disinfo when it comes to 9/11 Truth.

Similarly, Chomsky is also not a goy.