A Test For Steel - The Challange

I was thinking how a person could test construction grade I beam steel under fire conditions. So if you have some cash here is the experiment.

Get MAPP gas and a couple torchs, MAPP burns at 2927 C or 5301 F so it's very hot. Straight MAPP gas not mixed with anything else, these can be bought in small cans at most hardware stores, as pumbers use them for high speed soldering of pipes.

Apply the burning torches to the I beam for one hour, see what happens?

Does it bend?
Does it deform?
Does it fall appart?
Does it bend when extra weight is applied to one end?
Does it just turn red hot?
How does it react when hit with a 12 LB sledge hammer?



[edit on 31-8-2007 by Blue_Jay33]

To whoever is going to try that out, unless your somehow qualified I'd strongly advice against doing that. Anyhow, if you want to compare it to the WTC, you'll need to re-create the conditions it was in during 9/11, the steel in the WTC was supporting a lot of weight, and the building was already weakened due to the crash. I'd also say that MAPP burns at a much higher temperature then Kerosene does.

Originally posted by Qantrix
the steel in the WTC was supporting a lot of weight

It doesn't matter. The columns and beams were bigger, to handle the loads. It's all proportional. That's why there were also smaller members in WTC5, 6, etc.

We've already covered this one already;
www.abovetopsecret.com...



The consensus seems to be that debunkers can't put their money where their mouth is.

While they are quick to claim CT's have no solid proof (and outside of axiomatic math, no such thing as proof exists), they ignore the fact that there is NOT ONE SHRED of evidence tying Osama to the planning or execution of 9-11 and that there is all sorts of circumstantial evidence saying something else was really going on.

[edit on 8/31/2007 by sp00n1]

sp00n1

Your thread is good too. Mine is more about high heat on a I beam, what does it do to it. Since the MAPP gas is way hotter than anything the WTC fire could have ever produced.

And yes safety first people as has been mentioned

[edit on 31-8-2007 by Blue_Jay33]

www.pbs.org...

Part IV - "inferno"

"Most of the jet fuel was burned in a matter of a few minutes, maybe 5 or 6 minutes, but certainly less than 10 minutes"

Jet fuel had absolutely nothing to do with the collapse. The buildings fell due to ordinary office fires.

As you gradually heat steel it should (eventually) bend, not explode. Because of how the jets damaged the core structure (asymmetrically), the worse case scenario should have been the tops toppling off the building - not a complete and symmetric collapse.

Cheap experiment: 1 cinder block, 10 pop cans (empty), some superglue, blowtorch.

Stack the pop cans, supergluing them together. Rest the cinder block on top of the cans. Take the blowtorch and heat a few of the cans until it collapses.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by Angry Danish]

As you gradually heat steel it should (eventually) bend, not explode. Because of how the jets damaged the core structure (asymmetrically), the worse case scenario should have been the tops toppling off the building - not a complete and symmetric collapse

^^^^^^ QFT ^^^^^^

A total global collapse especially of the South Tower in less than an hour, I can't believe people buy the official storey, it was impossible, without more help than what we were told.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Mine is more about high heat on a I beam, what does it do to it.

The "scientific community" already knows exactly what would happen, for given ranges of temperatures. The only people that seem to be confused, are those that have given 2-seconds of thought to the WTC collapses, and are threatened by the idea that 9/11 was worse than we were told, and was an inside job. So they jump right to the conclusion, that it was anything but that, so the physics of steel at different temperatures is now apparently up for dispute in some cases. And also heated steel that's already in a steel-framed structure. Tests have been done there too, same thing.

there is NOT ONE SHRED of evidence tying Osama to the planning or execution of 9-11 and that there is all sorts of circumstantial evidence saying something else was really going on.

there most certainly is.

Mohammed's role as the lead actor in the Sep. 11 plot, which he proposed to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 1996 and bin Laden set in motion in 1999, has long been established. It was described in detail in the 9/11 Commission report published in 2004 and in a written substitution for his testimony in last year's trial of al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, who Mohammed says was tapped only for a "second wave" of post-9/11 attacks.

The guy that admitted to it is tied directly to Osama.

Originally posted by jprophet420
The guy that admitted to it is tied directly to Osama.

Because they admitted it, does not exclude other parties from being involved in 9/11. Even such testimony can be put into question - don't get me started on "interrogation techniques" used by our government...

Skip ahead to 23:30:

Google Video Link

[edit on 2-9-2007 by Angry Danish]

Originally posted by bsbray11
The "scientific community" already knows exactly what would happen, for given ranges of temperatures. The only people that seem to be confused, are those that have given 2-seconds of thought to the WTC collapses, and are threatened by the idea that 9/11 was worse than we were told, and was an inside job. So they jump right to the conclusion, that it was anything but that, so the physics of steel at different temperatures is now apparently up for dispute in some cases. And also heated steel that's already in a steel-framed structure. Tests have been done there too, same thing.

Here's a thread I started explaining what BsBray is saying.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Behavior of steel framed structures under fire conditions.

reply to post by Angry Danish

please don't quote me out of context. all i said is there was evidence, someone had claimed there was none.

they didnt 'beat it out of him' in a courtroom either, you can download and read the pdf transcript.

nonetheless to say UBL didnt do it is a stretch, but possible. to say there is no evidence whatsoever is utter hogwash.

and OP, sorry to get off topic twice. my take on the steel is this: even if the fire was hot enough to bend the steel all around the impact zone, thats still not enough to bring the building down onto itself. the problem i see with this aspect is that perhaps there was enough from both impact and fire to destroy the upper portions of the building. i have seen no evidence whatsoever that the rest of the buildings should fail due to heated steel on the top 30 floors or so.



[edit on 5-9-2007 by jprophet420]