Had the World Trade Center been made of concrete...?

Question

Had the World Trade Center been made of concrete, would it have fallen down so violently, if at all, saving more lives by not falling down?

The buildings were held up by steel i-beams that buckled under the heat of the burning jet fuel and support beams being destroyed. To my knowledge, concrete doesn't buckle under heat. I just want to know if anybody else has thought of this and what conclusions they came up with.

Thanks!

Answer 1

200,000 tons of steel
425,000 cubic yards of concrete
The elevator shafts were hermitically sealed to prevent migration of fire through the core.

Answer 2

First of all whoever said steel doesn't buckle from heat is an idiot. Simple physics says that solids expand when heated and while this causes some to crack metals don't. If one part of the metal is heated more than the other then that part will expand more causing the whole thing to deform. I don't know if this occured with the WTC but I do know the fires didn't melt the steel. They did weaken it a lot though and that's most likely what caused to top floors to collapse.

Almost all skyscrapers have a central core where the lifts and stairwells are so it's not a flaw of the WTC. One thing though is that in the WTC all the support beams were on the edge of the towers so once a plane got through that it could easily continue to the central core. Normally in skyscrapers steel beams are placed throughout the whole tower not only at the edge. This also means that there was a huge amount of open space between the edge and the core where the fires could easily get through.

If it had been built out of concrete I'd say it would have stayed up. The burj dubai, a tower twice the height of the WTC that's being built now as been designed to withstand such attacks and the whole structure is made from concrete, usually it's just the core but not here.

Answer 3

Thousands of people have tought long and hard about it. Steel does no buckle under haet from a fire. That is the whole point which proves that the government are lying.
The only way that the buiding could have collapsed into its own footprint, in less than 12 seconds, is for it to have been destroyed by controlled demolition, using explosives planted inside.
Also concrete would not be pulverised into dust by a fire. But it would be by explosives.

Answer 4

Maximum burning temperature of kerosene (jet fuel) 960 degrees

The maximum burning temperature of the office supplies would be less than that, paper is very inefficient when it burns, unlike kerosene

Melting point of steel is around 1300 degrees, depending on the alloy

To my knowledge 960 degrees is less than 1300 degrees. I'm not conspiracy-theory touting, but you simply can't use kerosene to melt steel.

Buildings need to have a steel frame for the concrete to cling to. Walls (especially very tall ones like in the WTC) buckle if they don't have supports of some kind to help hold them up.

Answer 5

The dumbest design in hind sight about that building was all the elevators and stairwells closely tucked in the center, assuring if any fire, bomb, or damage of any kind occured on any bottom level, everyone on the top levels would be completley trapped in such a tall building.

Talk about designing a building with optimism!
I'd be scared $hit to work on any floor above the 20th.
I know, because I've been on top of the World Trade Center over a dozen times.
I always thought anyone who worked there was crazy. But hey, it's money. ANd it's not like they all didnn't know it was a target (1991) bombing in the parking deck.
Every single time I went to the top of those buildings I imagined them falling to the ground. And on a windy day, they would sway. Really scary.

Answer 6

The design of high rise buildings requires steel for strength.Even reinforced cement concrete has some quantity of steel in it. RCC is more impervious to heat,but its weight/unit vol is high for a requisite compressive or tensile strength and hence the choice to go for steel girders.

Answer 7

Speaking of the World Trade Center, this is what's REALLY going on ihttp://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/911/Robert.htmn regard to 9-11!...

Answer 8

I saw one report that showed that the fireproofing that is usually mixed *with* the steel beams (thus making them internally more fire-resistant) was instead sprayed *on* the beams. Bad decision.

Answer 9

I'm no engineer, but concrete does not "give". When you're in a skyscraper you can feel it "sway" with the wind. I think that's a necessary part of its Engineering.

Answer 10

it would have been too expensive to build in the first place.

concrete is very cheap, but not as light as the aluminum and iron that they used. the wtc would not have been as tall if they even built it.