View Full Version : Construction and strength
danrush
23-09-2010, 12:30 AM
A question...
What is stronger? And yes it has relevance.
a. Steel joined by rivets?
b. Steel joined by Bolts?
c. Steel joined by a 11018M weld electrode?
ultima1
23-09-2010, 04:06 AM
A question...
What is stronger? And yes it has relevance.
a. Steel joined by rivets?
b. Steel joined by Bolts?
c. Steel joined by a 11018M weld electrode?
What is the relevance to an aluminum airframe hitting the steel lattice of the WTC buidlings and being shreded as it entered the buildings?
fast eddie
23-09-2010, 04:07 AM
What grade bolts?
danrush
23-09-2010, 04:07 AM
It has a lot of relevance, if you would explain to me how the lattice was assembled.
danrush
23-09-2010, 04:08 AM
What grade bolts?
Answer the basic question.
fast eddie
23-09-2010, 04:08 AM
Answer the basic question.
What grade bolts?
ultima1
23-09-2010, 04:09 AM
It has a lot of relevance, if you would explain to me how the lattice was assembled.
NO it has nothing to do with steel shredding aluminum.
danrush
23-09-2010, 04:11 AM
NO it has nothing to do with steel shredding aluminum.
You forget the plane isn't all alluminum. And you still refuse to answer a simple question.
ultima1
23-09-2010, 04:13 AM
You forget the plane isn't all alluminum. And you still refuse to answer a simple question.
No, about 80% is aluminum.
Welded steel is the strongest bond.
ultima1
23-09-2010, 07:28 PM
So now you can answer my questons.
Is the engine for a Japanese Zero in the nose, YES or NO?
Is the engine for a Boing 757 / 767 in the nose, YES or NO?
flat_top
23-09-2010, 08:36 PM
And can a jumbo jet with an aluminum nosecone just seem to 'melt' into a steel/concrete tower (specifically built to withstand the impact of such a jumbo jet and remain standing, by the way), as shown in the videos?
Really?
Keep dreaming, Danny-boy...
(Hi everyone...I had to jump in here after lurking for a few days)
lobuk
23-09-2010, 09:08 PM
And can a jumbo jet with an aluminum nosecone just seem to 'melt' into a steel/concrete tower (specifically built to withstand the impact of such a jumbo jet and remain standing, by the way), as shown in the videos?
Really?
Keep dreaming, Danny-boy...
(Hi everyone...I had to jump in here after lurking for a few days)
Welcome to the Forum. :)
merlincove
23-09-2010, 09:11 PM
welcome flat top :D
See, you are getting the hang of it already :rolleyes:
:D
merlincove
23-09-2010, 09:18 PM
And can a jumbo jet with an aluminum nosecone just seem to 'melt' into a steel/concrete tower (specifically built to withstand the impact of such a jumbo jet and remain standing, by the way), as shown in the videos?
i'd just like to add.....
"And can a jumbo jet with an aluminum nosecone just seem to 'melt' into a steel/concrete tower" ........... and seemingly exit the opposite side of the tower intact :eek:
All that really tough aluminium crashing through TWO lots of silly flimsy steel outer structure!
flat_top
23-09-2010, 10:27 PM
i'd just like to add.....
"And can a jumbo jet with an aluminum nosecone just seem to 'melt' into a steel/concrete tower" ........... and seemingly exit the opposite side of the tower intact :eek:
Al that really tough aluminium crashing through TWO lots of silly flimsy steel outer structure!
Exactly...although some people have said it is one of the engines exiting through the other side of the building, not the nosecone.
danrush
24-09-2010, 01:54 AM
And can a jumbo jet with an aluminum nosecone just seem to 'melt' into a steel/concrete tower (specifically built to withstand the impact of such a jumbo jet and remain standing, by the way), as shown in the videos?
You still haven't explained the construction of the WTC or answered my question.
Why don't you try my little alluminum bat test? I'll even send you a coupon of A-36 for it.
danrush
24-09-2010, 01:56 AM
"And can a jumbo jet with an aluminum nosecone just seem to 'melt' into a steel/concrete tower" ........... and seemingly exit the opposite side of the tower intact
All that really tough aluminium crashing through TWO lots of silly flimsy steel outer structure!
Gee...was the airplane "all" alluminum? Boy the ignorance is in full swing today.
ultima1
24-09-2010, 04:50 AM
Gee...was the airplane "all" alluminum? Boy the ignorance is in full swing today.
You really should look at the Boeing website and see what a 757 and 767 are made of.
They are about 80% aluminum.
ultima1
24-09-2010, 04:52 AM
Why don't you try my little alluminum bat test? I'll even send you a coupon of A-36 for it.
Why don't you try the test of fireing the bat at 500 mph at a piece of steel and see what happens.
I will give you $100.00 just to proof to you what happens when thin aluminum hits stronger steel.
tabea_blumenschein
24-09-2010, 06:18 AM
Why don't you try the test of fireing the bat at 500 mph at a piece of steel and see what happens.
I will give you $100.00 just to proof to you what happens when thin aluminum hits stronger steel.
I bet all the money I've got that you'll have a hole in the steel, and a very damaged bat (possibly in pieces) flying out the other side at several hundred mph.
flat_top
24-09-2010, 06:20 AM
Yo Danny-boy:
A. Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001:
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. (note: the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster) That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
B. There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut.
From: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
C. Furthermore, World Trade Center 7 was neither hit by an aircraft nor by a significant amount of falling debris from the twin towers (it was 300 feet away from the closest twin tower...Building 5 was hit harder by debris yet did not collapse). If the claim that it was destroyed by fire were true (it is not) then it would be the only steel framed skyscraper ever to have collapsed exclusively due to fire (into its own footprint in seven seconds, we might add).
See: http://www2.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php
Comprende?
ultima1
24-09-2010, 06:58 AM
I bet all the money I've got that you'll have a hole in the steel, and a very damaged bat (possibly in pieces) flying out the other side at several hundred mph.
Just like at the towers.
bryan
24-09-2010, 10:16 AM
You still haven't explained the construction of the WTC or answered my question.
Why don't you try my little alluminum bat test? I'll even send you a coupon of A-36 for it.
Why don't you post your little test here?