A "Concrete" Reason Why the Official Story of the WTC Collapse Jeopardizes Our Safety

"Post 9/11 Steel-Bashing Called Unfounded and Unfair"

In the group's marketing brochure, Gerosa says, "Concrete is the best material to use for safety, blast resistance, durability, flexibility....A cast-in-place, reinforced concrete structure is safer than any other commercial building type." He adds: "Structural steel is fine. We don't object to a steel structure if it is fireproofed properly," with cast-in-place concrete.

But the alliance lacks any scientific evidence, research or statistics to substantiate its claims that concrete is safer than steel. "It's our educated opinion, based on over 50 years of experience," says Gerosa.

Structural engineers say alliance claims are not only without merit, they are out of bounds. "Their assertion that concrete structures are safer than steel is based not on facts but on their greed to build concrete structures...," says Clifford Schwinger, quality assurance manager with Cagley Harman & Associates Inc., King of Prussia, Pa. "That they are trying to profit from the 9/11 tragedy by claiming concrete construction is safer is worse than obscene."

The alliance now is pushing concrete office towers, a building type long dominated in New York City by structural steel. "Before 9/11, we pretty much felt concrete itself was not practical for commercial highrises...," says Gerosa.
advertisement

The alliance has infuriated steel interests. The American Institute of Steel Construction Inc., Chicago, calls the group's "steel-bashing" tactics, "negative and unprofessional." AISC maintains that concrete does not offer better fire resistance, blast resistance or structural robustness.

snip

The straw that broke the camel's back for AISC was the alliance's marketing blitz after a recent highrise fire in Madrid. The campaign included a full-page magazine ad. It began: "A demonstration of cast-in-place reinforced concrete over steel construction was the recent fire at Madrid's Windsor Tower."

Scott Melnick, AISC's vice president of communications and editor and publisher of AISC's Modern Steel Construction, shot back with an editorial: "Their latest fairy tale tells the story of the Windsor Tower in Madrid and how it was consumed by a fire that raged for 36 hours. In their story, they report how the building had a concrete frame below the 21st floor and it remained intact, while the building's steel frame from floors 22 to 30 collapsed. There are just a few problems with this story, however. The steel in the building was simply an unprotected steel perimeter framing system primarily supporting the cladding. Second, both the unprotected perimeter framing system and the concrete beams and columns experienced a similar collapse...."To further dispel such stories, AISC's Carter notes a survey of fire-induced collapses in buildings worldwide, performed for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. "The majority of buildings that suffered fire-induced collapse were in fact reinforced concrete," he says.